PF Mar 2018 - Presidential power under the AUMF - Introduction

Resolved: On balance, the current Authorization for Use of Military Force gives too much power to the president.

Introduction

I believe the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 Twin Tower terrorist attacks saw the largest expansion of Executive Branch power in the history of the United States. The nation's founding fathers, having experienced life under a powerful monarchy, wanted to make sure the new government they were creating distributed power across the three branches (executive, legislative, judicial) in a controlled way by instituting a system of checks and balances. However, the founding fathers did not foresee a world of weapons of mass-destruction, non-state hostile actors and guerrilla warfare on a global scale. One of the changes made in 2001 was the adoption of the 'S.J. Resolution 23', "Authorization for Use of Military Force (Against Terrorists)". The AUMF, as it is abbreviated, allows the President to authorize the use of military force to carry out the so-called war on terror, thereby allowing the president to conduct "war" without the direct authorization of Congress as specified in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which states, "[Congress shall have power to ...] declare War".

As originally conceived, the AUMF was directed toward the terrorist groups and supporters who were deemed responsible for the 9-11 attacks. At the time, only Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) voted against the law, claiming it gave President G.W. Bush unlimited power to wage war. Of course at the time, such authority was viewed as a necessary counter-measure to deal with a "shadowy" and highly mobile terrorist organization operating "freely" across international borders. Since its enactment, the AUMF and the war on terror has been an on-going military operation for nearly 17 years and has resulted in armed conflict in many countries around the world. The effectiveness of this on-going war can be debated at another time under a different resolution, though we may cite its effectiveness in the analysis of our position framework.

There have in fact, been several AUMF's granted by congress over the decades. One of the first, granted in 1991, authorized the use of military force in Iraq in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. This was the authorization which resulted in the so-called first Iraq war. The, next AUMF (mentioned above) gave the president authorization to carry on the protracted war on terror. In 2002, a follow-up AUMF was issued which granted the executive authority to attack Iraq in the so-called, second Iraq war. Then in 2013, Congress passed an AUMF to give the President authority to respond to alleged chemical attacks in Syria. Specifically, the "Authorization  for Use of Military Force" is the short title of S.J. 23 passed in 2001.

Definitions

On balance

Hopefully we do not have to define these two words specifically. What we are interested in is the framework they setup. The debaters are required to debate the Pro and Con positions by weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages of the AUMF.

the current

Merriam-Webster defines this as, "presently elapsing: occurring in or existing at the present time".

Authorization for Use of Military Force

The AUMF was defined by Congress itself, in the text of the law.:

IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to  prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

gives

The context of this resolution is expressed by Merriam-Webster as "to grant or bestow by formal action".

too much

These words can be defined separately but there is probably no need. We understand from the context, that "too much" means excessive; an amount which is considered greater than that which is necessary or customary.

power

There are several useful meanings for this word. Merriam-Webster says, "ability to act or produce an effect", "legal or official authority, capacity, or right".

the president

As defined by Merriam-Webster, "an elected official serving as both chief of state and chief political executive in a republic having a presidential government".

Interpretation

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force has included several specifications directed toward varies ends since 1991, but in general it is the law which gives the president the authority to deploy military force as necessary for the security of the United States, in response to terrorism (specifically the group(s) responsible for the 9-11 attacks). It is important to note, the congress has claimed some regulatory power over the AUMF by constraining it to the provisions of "War Powers Resolution" of 1973, but in practice there have been very few legal challenges to actions of the president under the AUMF. The use of "current [AUMF]" is curious and probably unnecessary, except perhaps to distinguish among the various incarnations of the AUMF as discussed previously. Under the authority of the 2001 AUMF we currently have military forces deployed in Afghanistan and have expanded military presence in a number of other countries throughout Africa and Asia.

This debate is not necessarily about justifying the war on terror, even though I think it would be a very interesting debate. It is about the balance of power in the U.S. federal government and so all of your frameworks must focus upon several key points. First, is the assumption, that the AUMF is an expansion of executive power. I guess we can make some assumptions since it was necessary for congress to pass a law authorizing the president to have such ability, but there may be a reasonable debate over whether or not the authorization resulted in an unbalancing of government power. Obviously the Pro will argue the AUMF is an excessive expansion of presidential power, but the key to winning this debate will be showing how that additional power has result in negative impacts for the U.S. while the Con will no doubt be heavily making the claims, there have been no 9-11 scale terrorist attacks since 2001. For sure the threat of use of WMDs by terrorists has never happened and in the Con world, that will be evidence the AUMF was not excessive, but rather necessary and effective.

For more on the and other PF topics, click the Public Forum page tab above.